[Meta]How to discuss, RAW? RAI? And who moved my cheese? Options

[Irion]

Startet here:http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...5817&st=150

This thread is about how to discuss rules.

What is RAW and what is RAI? And how to to get RAW or RAI from the text.
Examples of shadowrun can be used in this thread.

A short introduction (my way of seeing it):
If talking about the rules as written (RAW) you mean the rules how they are stated in the text. Meaning you only take into account the wording of the rules.
Even if it leads to characters beeing unable to move, even if they are naked, people beeing able to hit a guy playing soccer in 1 mile distance 100% of the time, granades kill someone who would not even get a scratch from a direct hit of a assault cannon etc.

This means you leave anything outside the rules out. No fluff, no descriptions not even common sense. And most important no thoughts about balance of any thought. (It would be too strong/A character like that would be unplayable are argument which should not be used in a RAW discussion.)
RAI allows for fluff or similar ruling to be used. Those is of course only helpfull if RAW is seen as bad worded, meaning it is said like it would mean A but it is possible the intention was B.

@Neraph

if someone were to say that all guns shot fish in SR and you said that they do not, the way to "win" this is not to simply yell back and forth at each other but to quote a place where guns are loaded with bullets and not fish. I'm not asking you to prove me wrong, I'm asking you to prove yourself right.

And thats where you are wrong. You have to provide at least hints, that the guns are shooting fish.
Thats exactly what shifting the burden of proof means.

[1]All you need is an idea to assert a claim. [2]You need to quote rules to try and prove your side. The burden of proof is on the person making a claim. [3]Whenever one disagrees with someone else, the person in disagreement should quote rules or bring proof that their idea is valid. That is the very nature of the burden of proof.

I have insertet numbers to address the different parts of your statement:
[1]Yes, but the burden of proof is on you. (for your claim. Since mostly the other side has also a claim, they have their own "burden of proof")
[2]Yes, this is exactly what I said and it is contradicting your fish example.
[3]To a disagreement you need at least two people. Both are disagreeing with each other. This is contradicting your point made before, that "the burden of proof is on the person making a claim".

[Yerameyahu]

Just PM the guy.

[CanRay]

Oh, sure, be logical and sensible about things. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif) Don't give the rest of us a show until the Mods lock the thread. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Glyph]

The rules generally require some interpretation, and thus either some discussion/consensus among the people playing it, or overriding authority invested in the GM.

The problem with RAW is that the troublesome rules are written so vaguely that you can interpret their wording in more than one way. The trouble with RAI is that the rules were often written by more than one person, so determining RAI is usually very subjective. Plus, how the rules were intended is still not always going to be logical or balanced.

RAW is a good starting point for rules discussions, but something being allowable by some interpretation of RAW does not really justify any broken combo or rules-raping munkinism - it only illustrates that either a different interpretation or a good house rule is needed.

[hobgoblin]

Another issue is that while this forum may assume so, the consensus on a rule around the world may not be unified.

What seems overpowered at on table may be tame at another.

[Irion]

@Glyph
I disagree that the wording is mostly vague. If your go at it with an "I just read it and I do not care what it ends up to be attitude" you are able to find only one interpretation.
But if you get this interpretation in an ongoing discussion about any rule, it is most likely rejected by both sides.

RAW means every headline a bit off leads to quite crazy outcomes.

Take free spirits for example. RC gives the rules for creating a FS. But Streetmagic gives the rules für advancing a FS with Karma. Both rules do not fit together in any way.

Here was once the question if a free spirit gets all attributes= force.
RAW: No it does not. Generating a free spirit you have to increase every attribute seperatly. But if you later on in the game raise your force (10*new raiting) you gain +1 to every attribute.

[suoq]

This means you leave anything outside the rules out. No fluff

What, exactly, is the difference between rules and fluff? I've watched people on these forums when presented with what appear (to me anyway) to be rules that disagree with to claim "That's not a rule. That's fluff". There are sections where either the rules are either horribly written or it's 100% fluff and there are no rules. (Glamour, I'm looking at you.)

My experience with dumpshock is the vast majority of people are just arguing their home rules anyway. They post how they play and claim it's RAW. They certainly can't be bothered to actually look up a rule and find the page number and while I dislike that. it's not like I can find the rules anymore for rules I'm convinced exist. (I tried the other day to find out WHY firewall wasn't restricted by response. I gave up finding the RAW. It may be in there somewhere but god only knows where.)

[Yerameyahu]

I dunno, suoq, that's a pretty easy one. I'm loath to entertain this obviously passive-aggressive personal thread, but: there's fluff that trodes are inferior to datajack DNI, for example. There's no crunch matching that. So, it's not a rule, merely fluff. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) There's lots of that in the book.

[suoq]

I dunno, suoq, that's a pretty easy one. I'm loath to entertain this obviously passive-aggressive personal thread, but: there's fluff that trodes are inferior to datajack DNI, for example. There's no crunch matching that. So, it's not a rule, merely fluff. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) There's lots of that in the book.

Agreed. Unfortunately there are a number of corner cases as well.
"You give permission for anyone to connect to your commlink and see what is on it." - SR4A, pg 223. (Active commlinks) Rule or fluff?
"Sapient beings will always respond with awe, deference, and kindness to the character as long as she does not act hostile." - Runner's Companion, 113 (Glamour) Rule or Fluff?
Personally, I believe one to be a rule and one to be fluff, but, in the end, that's just a belief. The rule book isn't clear. It appears to swap from fluff to rules in the middle of a paragraph.

[hobgoblin]

(I tried the other day to find out WHY firewall wasn't restricted by response. I gave up finding the RAW. It may be in there somewhere but god only knows where.)

Iirc, there is none. At least not in the books. There may be some throw away reason in the FAQ, but the responses posted there seems to be fairly hit or miss regarding how they mesh with the books.

[suoq]

My current guess is that it's a matrix rating and not a program and therefore isn't limited the way programs are.
That raises the interesting question of the legality of System > Response (which would help on defending against Crash Node, Crash Program, Intercept Traffic, and possibly Spoof).

I'd like to think there's a rule there somewhere, but I'll be danged if I can find it. In the end, I fear it's something that I would have to house rule one way or the other.

[Paul]

What, exactly, is the difference between rules and fluff? I've watched people on these forums when presented with what appear (to me anyway) to be rules that disagree with to claim "That's not a rule. That's fluff". There are sections where either the rules are either horribly written or it's 100% fluff and there are no rules.

I think you've hit the nail on the head. While I do think there is a difference between actual rules, and so called "Fluff"-I do think the Fluff is intended to influence how interpret the Rules as Written. In the end this becomes an issue of personal preference. Some tables and players are hard core rules lawyers, other find the rules to be cumbersome guidelines-most fall int he middle, with a mix of the two.

At my own table we pick and choose, and I actually set a time limit on arguing rules or looking up rules during the game. (45 seconds then I make a ruling on the field, and after the game we can argue whether my ruling stands or not.) In the end I think it all comes to whether you're having fun or not. If you're having fun congratulations you're doing ti right! If not, back to the drawing board.

[hobgoblin]

Except that System is specifically defined as limited by Response (SR4A p222).

[Yerameyahu]

Which is why Firewall isn't. They had to specify for System, and later they specify for persona Programs (Edit, etc.) the System-based limit.

There is also proof in Unwired, where sample Standard nodes have Firewall>Response, and Firewall>System. The same is also true of Peripheral nodes (which have a specific *System* decapping from Response, but not Firewall), and Nexus nodes (which has the same *System* exception).

[suoq]

Except that System is specifically defined as limited by Response (SR4A p222).

Thanks. At least I know where that one is now. That helps me understand that the lack of it on firewall means something (Rule by omission).

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Agreed. Unfortunately there are a number of corner cases as well.
"Sapient beings will always respond with awe, deference, and kindness to the character as long as she does not act hostile." - Runner's Companion, 113 (Glamour) Rule or Fluff?

Well, the Rules for Glamour are pretty clear. You, mechanically, receive +3 Dice to your Social Rolls. Anything else is just fluff. Not sure if you are in agreement with that one. *shrug*

As for the Active Mode. Yes, They can connect to your PROFILE. That does not necessaruly mean that they get everything on your comlink, unless they actually hack it. So part rule and part fluff for that one. *shrug*

No worries, though. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[suoq]

And this is what I mean.

There's no justification for what someone claims is a rule and what they claim is fluff. How they play at their table is simply how it is to them. Those people who agree with them see it their way. Those who disagree, don't. It doesn't matter what the rulebook actually says, because if you don't agree with what the rulebook says you can claim to the rest of the dumpshock that it's fluff and can be ignored.

I'd love to see a higher standard for discussing the rules, but to do that, I think the game would actually need an editor.

[Yerameyahu]

Well, there's not *no* justification. There are a few muddy areas. Largely, anything with numbers is crunch, and everything else is fluff. Largely, the rules say things like 'in game terms', switch paragraphs, or progress from fluff to crunch within a paragraph to clarify; not always, and those can be annoying little problems.

Honestly, your two examples *are* pretty clear. The game doesn't have rules for 'awe', so it's just fluff. Similarly, 'see what is on it' is far too vague to be crunch, and it's clarified by lots of other explanations of public/Active stuff in the book(s). So yes, in total isolation, they're an issue.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

And this is what I mean.

There's no justification for what someone claims is a rule and what they claim is fluff. How they play at their table is simply how it is to them. Those people who agree with them see it their way. Those who disagree, don't. It doesn't matter what the rulebook actually says, because if you don't agree with what the rulebook says you can claim to the rest of the dumpshock that it's fluff and can be ignored.

I'd love to see a higher standard for discussing the rules, but to do that, I think the game would actually need an editor.

Heh... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) It is indeed a challenge. There are very few games, even Games with Highly Skilled, long time editors, that do not suffer from this issue.

Of Course: Feng Shui for the Win. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Glyph]

The "awe, deference and kindness" as long as the character with glamour "does not act hostile" may be rules, but I can see it being considered fluff - because rather than concrete numbers, it is giving some some statements that are so vague as to be almost unenforceable. Since any attempt to exploit that "awe, deference and kindness" could be considered "hostile".

[suoq]

it's clarified by lots of other explanations of public/Active stuff in the book(s).

This is interesting because, unless I'm missing something, the clarification of which your speak takes the form of fluff. (I know of no other areas where it clearly defines what can/cannot be seen on a commlink that's active, only areas that define what's being broadcast by said commlink.) Since fluff often (as you noted above) is not in line with the crunch, determining if something is or is not crunch by weather it matches with fluff seems problematic at best.

[Yerameyahu]

That doesn't make sense. If a given (interpretation of a) sentence is clearly *out* of sync with the rest of the book(s), then it's obviously wrong. But my point was that 'see what's on it' is so uselessly vague that it couldn't possibly be crunch in the first place. I don't see any possibility of that example *not* being fluff, so there's no crunch-vs.-fluff issue there. I was just explaining how everyone else knew. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[suoq]

That doesn't make sense. If a given (interpretation of a) sentence is clearly *out* of sync with the rest of the book(s), then it's obviously wrong. But my point was that 'see what's on it' is so uselessly vague that it couldn't possibly be crunch in the first place. I don't see any possibility of that example *not* being fluff, so there's no crunch-vs.-fluff issue there. I was just explaining how everyone else knew. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

How is that "uselessly vague"? Anyone logs into the commlink and looks at the data on that node. There's nothing vague about it. I'll agree it's completely dumb, illogical, and overpowered both for and against the shadowrunners, but in no way does it appear to be "vague".

I'm glad you don't see the possibility, but that does not mean everyone sees it your way. Personally, I see it as a rule that is best ignored or houseruled, but I still see it as a rule. You can get as frustrated with that as you want, but in the end, the rulebook makes no attempt to separate rules and fluff and writes both of them badly enough that they're often contradictory and open to guessing.

[Yerameyahu]

It's vague because it might mean 'all data' (insane) or it might mean 'public Facespace+ data' (it does), or anything in between. That's the definition of vague. (Luckily, as I said, everything else in multiple books lets us know what public/Active stuff is; nothing is in isolation.)

Again, no. You're so hyperbolic. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) It doesn't make 'no' attempt. It just doesn't do a great *job* at it. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) And yes, there're are both bad rules and bad fluff, which are certainly confounding factors.

[Draco18s]

The "awe, deference and kindness" as long as the character with glamour "does not act hostile" may be rules, but I can see it being considered fluff - because rather than concrete numbers, it is giving some some statements that are so vague as to be almost unenforceable. Since any attempt to exploit that "awe, deference and kindness" could be considered "hostile".

It's definately fluff. The +3 dice are supposed to represent that, IMO, although if we count it as rules, then we hit the social dice pool modifiers table too...making Glamor way more powerful than any other charisma boost of equivalent cost.

If the target is hostile, that's an immediate +6 dice (!) if Glamor moves them up to "Friendly." (That's on top of the +3 glamor already gives you)